1. Burning Simulation and Life-Cycle Assessment of Fusion Reactors Kozo YAMAZAKI Nagoya University, Nagoya 464-8603, Japan (with the help of T. Oishi, K. Mori, Y. Hori and K. Ban) 1

2. OUTLINE 1.Introduction 2. Burning Simulation using “TOTAL” (Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage) ITB, D/T ratio, Impurity 3. Life-Cycle Assessment using “PEC” (Plasma, Engineering and Cost) Cost, CO2, Energy Payback etc. 4. Summary 2

3. Small Experiment Burning Simulation Reactor Assessment Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage Physics, Engineering, Cost Searching for Attractive Fusion Reactor In our small Laboratory TOKASTAR 1. Introduction 3

4. Start (~1980) Tokamak (2 nd stability) Nuclear Fusion Vol.25 (1985) 1543. Helical Analysis Nuclear Fusion Vol.32 (1992) 633. Burning Simulation (Tokamak & Helical) Nuclear Fusion Vol.49 (2009) 055017. Based on JT-60U ITB operation and LHD e-ITB data. 2. Burning Plasma Simulation: “TOTAL” Code History 4

5. Core Plasma Equilibrium Tokamak: :2D APOLLO Helical: 3D VMEC, DESCUR, NEWBOZ Transport Tokamak ： TRANS 、 GLF23 、 NCLASS Helical ： HTRANS, GIOTA Stability NTM, Sawtooth, Ballooning mode Impurity IMPDYN (rate equation) Tunsgtein ADPAC （ various cross-section ） Fueling NGS (neutral gas shielding) model mass relocation model NBI HFREYA, FIFPC Puffing AURORA Divertor density control, two-point divertor Edge transport H-mode edge transport World Integrated Modeling TOTAL-T,-H(J) TOPICS(J) TASK(J) CRONOS(EU) TRANSP(US) ASTRA(RU) 5 Toroidal Transport Analysis Linkage Main Feature of “TOTAL” is to perform both Tokamak and Helical Analyses

6. Advance Reactor Operation Scenario with ITB assisted by Pellet Injection D/T fuel ratio adjustment for burn control High-Z impurity(Tungsten) Effect and Diverter Analysis NTM Effects on Burning Properties BS Current Fraction in ST reactor Stable against Ballooning Mode Present Research Issues Using “TOTAL” Code 6

7. Time evolution of reversed-shear-mode operation with continuous HFS pellet injection 1GWe Tokamak Reactor TR-1 7

8. Ignition Tokamak Design (~1980,PPPL) Helical Design Assessment IAEA-Montreal (1996) Helical & Tokamak Assessment IAEA-Lyon (2002) Cost/CO 2 /EPR Analysis in MFE reactors IAEA-Geneva (2008) Cost/CO 2 /EPR Analysis in MFE & IFE reactors IAEA-Daejeon (2010) 3. System Code Assessment: “PEC” Code History 8

9. Plasma beta value β Ignition margin Target Electric Output (MWe) Plasma Parameters Assumption of ① Thickness of Blanket (m) ② Plasma major radius R p (m) input Power Balance Check P target, t blanket, igm Final Radial Build Cost & CO 2 emission amounts output Driver Energy (MJ) Driver Efficiency (%) Target Electric Output (MWe) Fuel Mass (g) Fusion Energy (MJ) Assumption of Repetition Ratio f rep (Hz) input Power Balance Check P target Final Radial Build Cost & CO 2 emission amounts output MFE IFE Physics, Engineering, Cost Main Feature is Comparative Assessment of Various Reactors 9 Thanks to US data (ARIES Group)

10. Data from OECD/IAE Energy Prices and Taxes (2009) KoreaJapan Italy FranceGermany UK USA Home Industry Home Industry International Comparisons of Present Commercial COE (Supplementary Information) US$/kWh 10

11. SC Coil First Wall Blanket Shield Gap Plasma R m R 0 B max B 0 SC or NC Coil First Wall Blanket Shield Gap Plasma R m R 0 B m ax B 0 Reflector SC Coil First Wall Blanket Shield Gap Plasma R m R 0 B max B 0 TR HR ST First Wall Shield Blanket Laser IR Multiple Approaches Have Similar COE Tokamak Reactor 9.8¢/kWh Spherical Torus 10.4¢/kWh Inertial Reactor 10.7¢/kWh Helical Reactor 11.1¢/kWh 1¢~1\ 11 1GWe Plant

12. MFE Capital Cost ~ P 0.5 C.O.E. ~ P -0.5 CO 2 Rate ~ P -0.3 Power Dependence on COE, CO 2 rate 12

13. IFE Power Dependence of IFE is similar to that of MFE 13

14. New Scaling Laws are derived 14

15. Hondo et al., Socio-economic Research Center (2000) 1¢~1\ Comparisons with Other Power Plants 15

16. CO 2 Tax combines Cost and CO 2 CCS-Coal 16 1US¢~1\ 1US$~100\

17. ４. Summary ● Comparative system studies have been done for several magnetic fusion energy (MFE) reactors and inertial fusion energy (IFE) reactor. ● We clarified new scaling formulas for cost of electricity (COE) and GHG emission rate with respect to key design parameters. ● The comparisons with other conventional electric power generation systems are carried out taking care of the GHG taxes and the CCS (carbon dioxide capture and storage) system to fossil power generators. 17